POLICY PROPOSALS

FOR A BETTER INTEGRATION OF MINORITIES

IN SLOVAKIA

by Dr. EVA MALÁ

Slovakia

June 1998

FINAL REPORT presented to NATO about the project performed within the framework

of a NATO Research Fellowship

CONTENTS

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3

2 Historical background survey of the ethnic minorities situation in Slovakia.......................... 8

3 Present state of affairs ............................................................................................................ 12

3.1 Hungarian minority ........................................................................................................... 15

3.2 Ruthenian / Ukrainian minority ........................................................................................ 23

3.3 Romani minority .............................................................................................................. 29

4 Conclusions. Proposals for a better integration of minorities in Slovakia ............................. 36

References ................................................................................................................................. 47

1 Introduction

"Basic changes that occurred after the fall of the totalitarian system - freedom of the press,

freedom of speech, education, opinion, freedom of religion, all these civil liberties open space

for various ethnic groups, national minorities and national groups so that these groups can

begin to establish their independence in a certain natural way and to create their own, not

artificial and controlled, mutual relations. The beginning of the corresponding part of the

Copenhagen document of the Helsinki process provides one important idea, namely the fact that

minorities can find their rights and their self-realization best of all in a democratic environment,

under democratic conditions where democratic institutions and independent jurisdiction function

properly, where the executive, legislative and judicialpowers are separated, where freedom o

speech is tolerated," said the president Václav Havel in his introductory speech at the second

symposium about "Minorities in politics" which took place in the capital of Slovakia, Bratislava,

in 1991. It was organized in the hope to succeed in the creation of a tradition of meetings at

which European values of humanism and cultural pluralism would re-establish, create and

strengthen, and in the effort to involve the capital of Slovakia into the European integration

stream, looking for peaceful and constructive solutions to the problems of old Europe.

The functioning of an ethnic minority within a national majority country is a process of it

adaptation in the sense of becoming accustomed to the position of a minority in relation to

the majority community. J. W. Berry distinguishes three types of adaptations:

integration, assimilation and self-segregation according to the relationship the minority has to

its own culture and what value it ascribes to relationships with a majority community.

Integration means that a minority regards as important and valuable the preservation of

traditional culture and good relations with the majority nation.

Assimilation is such a method of adaptation when a minority community feels very strongly

about having good relations with the majority but it does not regard the preservation of

traditional culture important . A contrary case, when only the preservation of traditional culture is

regarded as being of value and good relations with the majority community are not regarded as

important, is defined by Berry as self-segregation. Berry´s classification seems to be an inspiring

starting point for considerattions about the position of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia and

about the role of the language in the process of its adaptation.The notion of "the preservation of

traditional culture" is understood freely as the preservation of the language, traditions, folklore,

ethnic pecularities to which the realization of a minority also binds itself, that it is different from

the majority and of their own identity.

As far as the notion of adaptation is concerned, the process of a minority´s adaptation is not

simple but it is a mutually conditioned interaction of the minority and the majority where the

majority community plays an active role by creating conditions for the functioning of the

minority, by their method of answering to the demonstration of existence and activity of the

��������� �� ������ �� ��� ����� �� ������������ ���� ����������� �� ���� ��� �������� �� ���� ��

positive relationship with the majority community seem to be the most accetable way of

coexistence because "profit and loss" gained or incurred by individual parties are divided here in

a very ill-balanced way the target condition is achieved with common effort. It is not generally

accepted that one gains only when the other loses but if we use the analogy of non-zero games,

profits of individual parties depend mutually one upon the other and then it is necessary to look

for a way maximizing the profit for both parties. This means that the integration of a minority in a

majority community requires a mutual activity, bilaterally positive gradual actions and the

anticipation of consequences of individual actions, to put it simply, willingness, understanding

and tolerance. It results there from that it is a way of cohabitation that requires good will on both

sides, i.e. on the formal level - institutional and inter-personal, and it is exacting and complex for

both parties. The point is that the minority has to find a measure of preservation, protection of its

own culture and identity that does not isolate it from the majority or a degree of proximity to the

majority that does not threaten its own identity. For a majority community, the basic problem is

to what extent to tolerate and support the existence of a different, and foreign to a certain extent,

element violating the homogeneity of the society with a possible threat of its destabilization, and

to what extent to interfere with, and make decisions on, the methods of existence of the minority,

and take responsibility for the minority. It is evident that a specific form of cohabitation of a

majority community depends on many circumastances, on the character of the minority itself and

on the characteristics of the majority community. An important role is played not only by the

geopolitical and historical context and legal, legislative, demographic and social conditions and

cultural and language differences but also the subjective reflection of these facts - the rate of their

consciousness, acceptance and assessment both on the part of minority members and the majority

��������� � ��� ���� ��� ������� ���������� !������� "�#$����� � � %������&� %���������

'������ (�#���� (���)� *�+���,� -��������� � ���.�� /�� �� �� "��#��� 0���� 0������ 1������

Orkény, Szabó, Szantó) but also many other experts from Western Europe (Allardt, Barth,

Edwards, Galtung, Price, Thornerry), from the USA and Canada (Berman, Berry, MacKey,

McDonald, Secada), and many others began to speak about the controversial periods of our

common history, which taught us to look at our problems and conflicts from a dispassionate point

of view and within the framework of a larger context

Within the framework of international symposia and conferences, the question is about the

reasons and nature of ethnic conflicts. In their papers, participants deal with the questions of

whether Europe will split into a number of larger or smaller countries if their rights to national

self-determination have been fulfilled, whether minorities are islands of cultural differences

which have to be defended in every possible way or they are crossings of cultures that have to be

accepted in order to be able to participate in the decision making on the political and economic

destiny of the area where they live. There are also recommendations about what it is inevitable to

re-evaluate historical knowledge which is divided according to individual nations and to begin

with education to democracy, civil rights, tolerance of differences, to educate a new generati

liberated from prejudice of their parents, to support common inter-regional projects and to

expand mutual contacts. The 21st century will be a century of European co-operation,

cohabitation of various cultures, openess, and of a multili ngual environment. It is necessary to

always realize the existence of these facts. After all, the values of democracy, humanism and

cultural pluralism which, as we believed, were won in Czechoslovakia after November 1989,

were also in our country radically called into question by reproaches for weak defense of national

interests and lack of loyalty to one´s own nation. Passed wrongs, injustice and hatred are used as

arguments apologizing to new enemies and new borders. Values with respect to man and to

individual and cultural differences are explained as being weakness, naivete, cowardliness and

escape from problems. Unfortunately, we can see now what we did not want to admit to at the

time of euphoria, i.e., as a matter of fact, we are only at the very beginning of the birth of a free

nation without prejudice and myths, a nation aware of its own historical experience soaked with

feelings of injustice, uncertainty, pain, fright and hatred. For various reasons, the psychotherapy

will be long and complicated, full of unexpected events. We have missed a great deal, we did not

devote enough time to a number of problems because a partner and a reason were missing. Now,

when we are able to speak about them together, they are still too burdened with our emotions and

specific problems. Many problems, before we realize their nature, are attributed political

importance, which occurs to such an extent that it is really very difficult to speak about the

freely. We are building new walls of misunderstanding although we have not yet succeeded in

removing the previous ones. This psychotherapy cannot be successful without good will and a

firm resolu tion to overcome what was divided, and is still dividing, us in the Danube area. It is

necessary to have strong will to avoid forced solutions, solutions to the detriment of one

party.Most international human rights conventions and agreements define minority rights fairly

narrowly. In general, they include the rights of individuals to non-discrimination, cultura

development, and religious freedom, in addition to the freedom of speech, assembly, and

organization.

The topic of minorities is a key to the further development of democracy in all countries which

have got rid of Communist dictatorship. The point is that a new state and power structure are

being formed, we often encounter opinions on what democracy is. e.g. ´democracy is the right of

the majority to make decisions.´ It is therefore necessary to introduce a contrary opinion of a

minority and if every group of citizens, unless their interests are destructive, have a legal

possibility to satisfy their own needs. And if we realize that these needs must not be in variation

with the interests of the state, then it is also necessary to define clearly such interests and separate

them from the interests of political parties even if such parties are in power at a particular

moment.

During the last population census in 1991, 85.7% of the citizens of the Slovak Republic Slovak

nationality was professed . The other most numerous nationalities are in descending order as

follows: Hungarian (576.000), Romany (76.000), Czech (53.000), Ruthenian (17.000),

Ukrainian (13.000) and Moravian (6.000). According to official and unofficial estimates, the rea

number of members of some of the minorities is substantially higher.

Minorities are building blocks of a civil society. In a stricter sense of the word, the question is

in particular to national minorities, although this notion covers political, religious, social and

various other minorities. In the political sense of the word, for example, parliament should not

make a decision by a simple voting and enfoce an opinion of the coalition majority in power but

it should look for optimum solutions in which also senators would participate equally who,

during coalition discussions, represent an evident minority group.

The provisional agreement of the European Council on the protection of national minorities

presupposes that ´parties in power will support the spirit of tolerance and a dialog among

cultures and will take effective actions in order to support the idea of mutual respect,

understanding and cooperation among all people living on a territory no matter what their ethnic,

cultural, linguistic or religious identity they belong to, in particular in the sphere of education,

culture and the mass media.´

A similar idea is expressed also in the European Charter of regional or minority languages:

´The member countries bind themsleves to support mutually, taking appropriate actions,

understanding among all language groups in a particular country, especially to include an idea of

respect, understanding and tolerance in relation to regional or minority languages into educational

and professional training targets in respective countries as well as stimulation of the mass media.´

The notion itself ´national minority´, however, encounters criticism in the European context.

People speak about national minorities, ethnic groups, etc. The senator to the European

Parliament, Mr Berns Posselt, wrote last year that "the notion of minority has often an after-taste

of inferiority or a lack of legal protection and becomes a depressing one because political

minorities and majorities may take turns in a democratic society but not in a national minority.“

As a part of this report, I have carried out a series of interviews with officials of various

organisations dealing with minority problems in Slovakia as well as in Hungary and Ukraine.

Many of these organisations are concerned with minority relations and strive to eliminate

discrimination and prejudice wherever they exist. In these interviews my principal objective was

to find out how much thought and consideration had been given by these organisations, and

integration, of whatever nature.

The main conception of my report is the ethnic minority problem in the framework of a wider

context of civilization, it means social, religious and the language problem in its basis. Within

this wider perspective the culture and language rules and laws of ethnic minority in Slovakia are

aimed at our thoughts towards identity, rich variety and mutual respect and not towards

separation, uniformity and mutual animosity as the way politics and nationalism do.

The topic of my report is extremely current and at the same time extremely demanding,

especially at present in Slovakia.

The report is divided into an introduction containing the basic concepts, the framework of the

issues and the hypothesis. The following chapter gives the historical background survey of the

ethnic minorities in Slovakia. The third chapter entitled ´The present state of affairs´ elaborates in

more detail the problem of the main ethnic minorities in our country, Hungarian,

Ruthenian/Ukrainian and Romani. In the last chapter of my report I give proposals for a better

integration of minorities in Slovakia on the basis of my interview materials and an examination of

the published literature which is presented in the references.

2 Historical Background Survey of the Ethnic Minorities Situation

in Slovaki

After centuries of Hungarian domination, Slovakia became a constituent unit of the newly created

Czechoslovak state at the close of World War One. Territorial revisions left a substantial

Hungarian (or Magyar) minority in Slovakia. In 1920, Hungarians numbered about 634.000

people, or 21% of the population. A majority of Hungarian politicians were unable to reconcile

themselves to the loss of „Upper Hungary“ (Slovakia), and together with Hungarian minority

leaders in Slovakia pressed for the region´s return to Budapest. Although the Czechoslovak stat

was comparatively liberal by standards prevailing elsewhere in Eastern Europe, Hungarian

activists charged that discriminatory policies were applied against them, particularly as the

constitution gave the Czech and Slovak languages a privileged position in public life. In addition

to Hungarians, inter-war Slovakia also contained about 140.000 Germans, 85.000 Ruthenians and

Ukrainians, approximately 70.000 Jews, and a handful of smaller nationalities.

The Czechoslovak state was dismembered by Nazi Germany in 1938. The regions of Bohemia

and Moravia were transformed into German protectorates, Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia was wholly

annexed by Hungary in March 1939, while Slovakia became a quasi independent protectorate

ruled by a pro-German fascist regime under the presidency of the Catholic cleric Monsignor

Jozef Tiso. The government in Bratislava introduced various anti-Jewish measures, including the

seizure of property and systematic exclusion from economic life. During 1942, the Slovak

authorities assisted the Nazis in shipping the bulk of the Jewish population, over 50.000 people,

to death camps in German-occupied Poland. The remaining Slovak Jews were either incarcerated

in labour camps, escaped to Hungary, or perished after the Slovak uprising in August 1944 when

German authorities launched further deportations and exterminations.

Czechoslovakia was reestablished at the close of World War Two, initially under a multi-party

coalition government. In 1948, the Communist Party under Soviet direction began to centralize

the political and economic systems along Stalinist lines. Despite earlier Communist promises,

Slovakia did not attain autonomy in the revolutionary state.

During the 1950´s and 1960´s the country remained a staunchly pro-Soviet satellite, exhibiting

little tolerance for regional autonomy or political dissent. At the close of the war, over 500.000

Hungarians had been left in Slovakia. The new government in Prague initially planned to expel

them or conduct large-scale population exchanges with Hungary, but it eventually desisted under

allied pressure and Soviet opposition and citizenship rights were restored to the Hungarian

minority. In the interim, between 1945 and 1948, about 90.000 Hungarians were transferred to

Hungary in exchange for over 70.000 Slovaks.

The Communist authorities launched a programme of Slovakization among Hungarians

believd to be of Slovak origin, and tens of thousands of Hungarians declared themselves to be

Slovaks largely to avoid official recriminations. The Hungarian population dipped to some

200.000 at the height of the campaign but rose again to over 530.000 in 1961 after the

programme was abandoned. The demographic strength and potential political influence of the

Hungarian minority was also diminished through the reorganization and merger of Slovak

counties. as a result, Hungarians retained a majority in only two of the enlarged southern

counties. Although under Communist rule Hungarians, Ukrainians, and Ruthenians were formally

provided with legal rights to their own independent schools, newspapers, and cultural

associations, many of these guarantees were not implemented or remained under strict part

supervision. In addition, the Ukrainian Uniate Church and the Roman Catholic Church were

subjected to vigorous government persecution.

The ethnic-minority issue was not paid much attention by Czechoslovakia´s Communis

leadership until several years after World War Two. No authorized statistics were even cited until

1965.

During the short-lived Prague Spring liberalization in 1968, Slovakia attained some measure of

political autonomy. The framework of this arrangement survived the Soviet-led invasion and the

Communist „normalization“ that extinguished democratic reform throughout the country. In

January 1969, Czechoslovakia was declared a federal socialist state consisting of two republics:

Czech and Slovak ones, with nominally equal rights in the federation. In practice, the federal

structure remained subordinated to the Communist Party´s centralism and monopolist control

over the country´s political, economic, and cultural life.

The Prague Spring reforms also loosened restrictions on minority population by improving thei

cultural and educational facilities and employment opportunities. The possibility of Ukrainian-

Ruthenian and Hungarian autonomy within Slovakia was also discussed. However, following

Moscow´s intervention, the Slovak authorities reversed their policies towards the minorities in

their pursuit of ethnic and republican homogenization. The campaign was opposed by loca

Hungarian leaders fearful of losing their hard-won linguistic and cultural liberties. Despite this

resistance, they were subject to repression and persecution and to operate under harsh political

conditions throughout the 1970s and 1980s under the Gustáv Husák and Miloš Jakeš regimes.

In 1968, Constitutional Law No 144 was introduced on the nationality question in the

Czechoslovak Socialist Republic establishing rules for the treatment of minorities. While this law

included the right for minorities to receive education in their own language, the prevailing view

was that the law was too vague and needed further specification. While the short-lived Prague

Spring in 1968 raised hopes for major constitutional and legislative enactments to codify minority

rights, throughout the years of normalization the position of ethnic minorities deteriorated once

again even while Constitutional Law No 144 remained valid.

Following the Czechoslovak „Velvet Revolution“ of November 1989 and the rapid collapse of

the Communist Party rule, pressures began to increase in Slovakia demanding extensive

political and economic autonomy. Several Slovak political parties became more outspoken on the

issue of self-determination and capitalized on the painful effects of economic reform to accuse

Prague of discrimination and of neglecting Slovak interest. Slovak deputies pressured the

Federal Assembly into changing the country´s name to the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic,

but the move simply revealed the deep-seated mistrust and served to stimulate Slovak aspirations

further.

Slovak nationalists opposed President Václav Havel ´s calls for a referendum on the future o

the federation. They feared that confronted with a simple choice, the majority of Slovaks woul

choose to remain in the federation. Following the June 1992 elections, in which pro-

independence forces gained ground in Slovakia, Prague and Bratislava proved unable to agree on

a restructured federal arrangement. By October 1992, the two sides agreed on a formal division,

and on January 1, 1993, two new states, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, came into

existence.

Since the democratic changes in Czechoslovakia, not only Hungarian, but also the Ruthenian

and Ukrainian populations have become more active. Questions have been raised over the precise

size of these communities, as in previous censuses Ukrainians and Ruthenians reportedly

disguised their ethnic identity for fear of official repercussions. An additional complication has

arisen over the precise ethnic identity of this Slavic population that has been denominationally

divided between Greek-rite Catholic and Orthodox. In 1991 Czecho-slovak census, a Ruthenian

nationality was registered for the first time without parentheses and almost half of those who had

previously declared themselves Ukrainian now defined themselves as Ruthenian. This

rediscovered Ruthenian consciousness created rifts and conflicts within the community and even

within villages and families at different stages of assimilation or re-identification. The free

expression of Ruthenian and Ukrainian identity also began to have an impact on relations

between Bratislava and Kiev, particularly as Ruthenians in the Transcarpathian region

rediscovered or strenthened their ethnic distinctiveness when Ukraine moved toward

independence.

The Czechoslovak Communist regime refused to register the Romani (Gypsy) population as an

ethnic minority.Unemployment rates remained high among Romani, but the authorities attempted

to erase this problem by simply considering the unemployed as disabled and paying them

pensions. Romani have maintained the highest birth rate of all nationalities in Czecho-Slovakia,

and some sources predicted that they will compose almost 8% of the population within the next

10 to 15 years. The low number of Romani who openly declared their ethnic identity pointed to

both a widespread fear of discrimination and a low level of national awareness. After the fall of

Communism , unemployment among Romani rose as high as 40% to 50% in some regions. While

there were no official statistics, illiteracy rates were also believed to be overwhelming among this

population. In addition, Romani were perceived to be the cause of a disproportionate percentage

of crime, while prejudice, discrimination, and animosity against Gypsies remained common place

among the general public.

3 Present State of Affairs

At the end of the 20th century Slovakia belongs to the European multi-national countries.The

citizens of this relatively small area in the neighbourhood of a relatively large number of

countries belong to more than eight nationalities. Almost 15% of the Slovak citizens is of a

different nationality than Slovak. The problem of national identity is very complex and

extraordinarily complicated, especially on the territory of a country having its own rich historica

experience with incorporating into, and setting apart from, various political and geographica

entities.

In the foreword to my report I decided to mention the results of the sociological research

entitled „Aspects of national identity of the inhabitants of Slovakia“ as performed with a

representative group of 1.385 respondents in 1996. Within the framework of this research 99.0%

of respondents answered that they were citizens of the Slovak Republic. The most important

condition for a citizen living in Slovakia who wants to regard himself/herself Slovak is his/her

feeling that he/she is Slovak. So the Slovak citizens define their nationality on the basis of their

feelings.

Since the end of the Second World War, three types of collective identities have been formed

in Europe. First, it is consciousness at a regional level, i.e. people feel bound to a certain region.

This type of identity is constantly gaining strength in Europe. Also the results of the research in

the Slovak Republic showed that 85% of men and 84% of women expressed their closer

relationship to a certain area or village. One of the most significant differential indices was age.

The higher the age the higher the number of respondents regarding their relationship to their

place of dwelling as a very close one. Education, on the other hand, acted as a contrary criterion.

respondents with basic education regarded their relationship to their place of dwelling as a close

one (as many as 92%) whereas in the case of university graduates this number is only 77%.

Respondents who are graduates from secondary schools may be regarded as the most satisfied

ones. 71% of them said that they had settled in the place where they had lived a greater part of

their childhood.

The second type of the present territorial identity is labeled as national and state consciousness.

This type is strongly linked with economic, cultural and communicative globalization of a

modern society. It decreases with the development of globalization. In Slovakia it has begun to

form in a gradual way. Opinions of respondents on their relationship to the Slovak Republic were

also influenced by the present problematic Slovak-Hungarian relationships. In spite of the fac

that a majority of members of various nationalities has a positive relationship towards the Slovak

Republic, great differences have been registered. As many as 91% of Slovaks characterized their

relationship to the Slovak Republic as a close one, in the case of the other nationalities this

number was 84% of respondents and in the case of the Hungarian nationals it was only 72%. To

sum up, we may say that the territory of the Slovak Republic functions, in spite of the said

differences, as a certain identification element also for other nationalities. Relationships to a

different country were not analyzed in this research.

Respecting free will of a country´s citizens when they want to make decisions on further

orientation of their country is considered to be one of the conditions for a well-developed

democracy. Such free decision making is linked with the third type of collective identity.

Attitudes of citizens characterized as European consciousness are formed in connection with the

establishment of a unified political and economic union. A majority of Slovak inhabitants

supported the entry into integration groupings. The basic problem, i.e. whether or not to adhere

to the European Union, was lack of information. More than 60% of people said that they had only

little or no information at all on the European Union. Better informed people expressed more

positive expectations towards the EU, this being the reason, at the beginning of 1996, why the

question of entry into the EU was the most significantly influenced by age, education and

knowledge of a foreign language. Opinion on the EU and the NATO, as analyzed in the research,

coincided in a significant way. Similar to the question of entry into the EU, was the question of

adherence to the NATO in the case of which the number of people who did not respond or who

had not decided in its favour was relatively large - 30%.

About 78% of respondents mentioned Slovakia as a country in which they would like to live

rather than in a different country. However, classification according to nationality disclosed very

big differences: 80% of Slovaks felt proud that they live in Slovakia as compared to Hungarian

nationals where the number was only 51% with the other nationalities some 53% had this feeling

of pride. The feeling of pride on selected areas was also very differentiated according to

nationality. Citizens of Slovakia felt the greatest pride in their past (74%), there of 77% of

Slovaks, 33% of Hungarian nationals and 37% of the other nationalities. In 1996 citizens were

the least proud in the functioning of democracy and in the political influence of Slovakia in the

world. As many as 75% of respondents answered the question of democracy as follows: „I am not

proud at all“ and „I am not very proud“ and the question of political influence in Slovakia was

answered in a similar way by 70% of respondents withoutsignificant differences according to

individual nationalities.

Only 2% of respondents consider Hungary their country of origin, 96% said that Czecho-

slovakia was the country of origin of their parents. To be born in Slovakia is regarded by only

54% as being important for a person´s consciousness and feeling that he/she is Slovak. To know

how to speak Slovak is considered important by 92% of respondents. When analyzing these

answers, interesting differences appeared according to nationalities. The said facts were

regarded as significant by 93% of Slovaks and by 87% of members of the other nationalities, in

the case of the Hungarian nationality, however, the number was 76% of respondents. Religion

was classified as being a less significant factor for a person´s feeling that he/she belongs to a

certain nationality. Only 26% in total consider religion an important condition. The greatest need

to be a Christian is felt by 40% of members of the other nationalities.

The opinion that the state should support minorities in order for them to preserve their customs

and traditions is regarded as good by 52% of respondents, but according to the nationality

classification, this opinion was expressed by 49% of Slovaks, 88% of Hungarian nationals and

92% of members of the other nationalities. Significant differences in answers show that there are

still latent differences, if not problems, in understanding the present social situation. Many of the

answers classified according to the nationality viewpoint disclosed frequent short circuits

between nationality communication networks. Should this problem be solved at too slow a pace,

the present small differences could get even worse.

It is not possible to characterize clearly the specific national identity of the Slovak nation in

such a way as is sometimes called for. The said research proved that the establishment of a new

state did not bring with itself an „ethnically pure“ Slovak nation, nor will it bring one in the

future. Citizens of Slovakia represent a varied set of ethnic identities. The basic attitude of Slovak

citizens is their identification and the feeling that they are members of a new country no matter

what nationality, Slovak, Hungarian, Ruthenian, Romani or other, they belong to.

3.1 Hungarian minority

The Hungarian minority is both a historic and territorial minority. There are no greater

civilization or cultural dissimilarities between the Slovak and Hungarian inhabitants, neither are

there any racial differences. They have their common history and, to agreat extent, customs and

traditions, certain elements of folklore, religion, comparable social and educational structure.

They are divided only by the language and certain elements of historical and cultural traditions.

The position of Hungarian minority has proved to be the most contentious nationality issue in

Slovakia since the democratic changes. After the „Velvet Revolution“ Hungarian activists began

to organize openly and to campaign for their collective rights. Whereas some leaders calculated

that demands for minority rights should not take precedence over the wider democratization

process, other groups viewed the nationality problem as paramount and were accused of

radicalism and separatism. The largest minority organization, Coexistence, styled itself as a

multi-ethnic and not simply a Hungarian movement and denied that it was seeking secession

from Slovakia. The organization gained seats in the Slovak National Council and campaigned for

the expansion of minority educational, media, and publishing activities. Hungarian groups

claimed that the position of minorities was under threat from rising Slovak nationalism and

increasing disengagement by Prague. They claimed Bratislava would apply various restrictions

and discriminatory measures. Hungarian organisations also expressed concern over the

incitement of ethnic conflict by ultra-nationalist Slovak forces, some of whom staged anti-

Hungarian demonstrations and even called for the whole-sale expulsion of the Hungarian

minority. Conversely, radical Slovak groups accused Budapest of assisting Hungarian

organizations in search of territorial gains, a charge that was strenuously denied by the Hungarian

government. Hungarian leaders remained troubled that Slovak independence would have a

negative impact on the position of the Hungarian minority. They argued that Slovak self-

assertiveness could be turned against Hungarians, who would be increasingly depicted as

threatening national interests and challenging the republic´s territorial integrity. Such conflicts

could escalate during a period of severe economic dislocation, high unemployment, and popular

susceptibility to nationalist and populist slogans. Slovak independence could prove to be a

double-edged weapn for Hungarian population. On the one hand, it could result in more

repressive policies by Bratislava and undercut many of the rights gained since 1989, while

Hungarian leaders would have no recourse to protection from Prague. On the other hand , Slovak

sovereignity could actually galvanize Hungarian activism and fuel demands for minority self-

determination and even territorial autonomy under Budapest´s patronage.

After the fall of communism, the status of ethnic minorities gained increasing importance in

Czechoslovakia. Among the new features of the first post-Communist census, held in March

1991, was the opportunity to declare oneself part of an ethnic minority that had not been

recognized by the previous regimes, for example, Romani, Moravian, or Ruthenian. Another key

development was the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Liberties, adopted by the Federal

Assembly in January 1991, that formed a new legal basis for the treatment of ethnic minorities.

This document outlined the basic human, civil, and political rights of Czechoslovak citizens and

was to serve as a foundation for the future federal and republican constitutions. In a special

section that addressed minority rights, the charter provided everyone the opportunity to decide on

his/her nationality, prohibited anti-minority discrimination, and permitted all minorities to form

their own associations. It also stated that under certain conditions minorities would have the right

to be educated in their own language and to use it in dealings with officialdom.

However, Hungarian spokesmen contended that the charter may have inadvertently reduced the

existing rights of minorities by defining the state as the „national State of Czechs and Slovaks“

and abrogating earlier constitutional laws relating to minorities. In protest, Hungarian deputies

walked out of the Federal Assembly for the duration of the final vote on the charter. Hungarian

leaders also objected to laws adopted by the Federal Assembly relating to compensation

payments for property expropriated afterWorld War Two. The Compensation Act and the Land

Act passed in 1991 referred only to property confiscated after February 1948, the date of the

Communist takeover. No compensation was offered for losses sustained by Hungarians between

1945 and 1948, a period when explicitly anti-Hungarian decrees deproved the minority of their

property and citizenship rights.

Article 12 of the Slovak constitution, ratified in September 1992 and effective the following

month, quaranteed basic rights and liberties regardless of language, national or social origin,

affiliation with a nation or ethnic group, as well as the right to choose nationality without

pressure to assimilate. Articles 33 and 34 on the Rights of National Minorities and Ethnic

Groups formally secured the right of minorities to develop their culture, to disseminate and

receive information in the mother tongue, to establish educational and cultural institutions, and

allowed for the functioning of national-minority associations.

The Language question was dealt with by reinforcing the need to master the „state language“

while quaranteeing the right to education in the mother tongue and the right to participate in

solving problems pertaining to their status but in doing so they needed to exercise their rights in a

manner that would not jeopardize the sovereignty of the Slovak Republic.

Hungarian members of the Slovak National Council unanimously rejected the constitution,

arguing that it failed to guarantee the identity and self-governemnt of minorities or allow for the

creation of territorial „self-administrative“ entities that would satisfy Hungarian aspirations.

Hungarian deputies strongly objected to the constitutional definition of the new country as the

„National State of Slovaks“, claiming that there were no explicit guarantees for the preservati

and safeguarding of minority identities. Specifically, they pointed out that only „national

organizations“ could be formed by ethnic minorities thus opening up the possibility of dissolving

Hungarian political parties at any time. Moreover, the constitution declared that the rights of

minorities could not endanger Slovak sovereignty and territorial integrity, a provision that was

allegedly open to abuse. Hungarian deputies proposed a constitutional amendment to guarantee

the right to develop one´s national, ethnic, linguistic, or cultural identity, while banning any

activities that lead to assimilation.

Hungarian leaders claimed that the constitution failed to stipulate the rights of minorities to

establish and maintain schools in their mother tongue. The constitution also replaced the concept

of the „official language“ with that of the „state language“ and offered no legal guarantees for the

use of minority languages in dealing with the authorities. The language issue was further defined

by the controversial Language Law passed by the Slovak National Council in October 1990. The

law declared Slovak the official language, allowing Czech to be used in official transactions, and

states that if members of an ethnic minority constituted 20% of the population in an

administrative area they were entitled to use their language formally. There was, however, no

stipulation requiring state officials either to be proficient in minority languages or to employ

them if they were. The application of the law also resulted in Hungarian names no longer being

registered in birth registers, invalidated any moves toward restoring Hungarian appelations for

municipalities, and abolished bilingual street signs. It also permitted officials to refuse to conduct

marriage and funeral services in Hungarian.

After Slovakia became a member of the Council of Europe in June 1993, Bratislava came under

international pressure to alter some of its minority rights legislation. Indeed, in July 1993 the

Parliament passed a law again allowing minorities to register their names in their mother tongue.

Further conciliatory measures to defuse domestic and international criticism appeared likely.

Although the version of the language law that was finally passed in 1990 was not as radical as

some Slovak national parties had proposed, the legislation itself, as well as the Slovak

constitution, were depicted by Hungarian leaders as impediments to minority right . The

Hungarian-dominated political movement Coexistence criticized the Language for not ensuring

the rights of national communities to use their native language in official matters, for eliminating

bilingual signs, and for disregarding the referendums that voted to replace the original township

names.

The main Hungarian movement, Coexistence, on its fourth congress condemns Slovak

governemnt policies that are evidently intended to curtail minority rights, and calls for „political

and economic self-administration“ for the Hungarian - inhabited areas of southern Slovakia.

Hungarian activists also persistently complained that Slovakia´s educational system had

purportedly failed to reverse the assimilationist pressures evident since the 1950s. They argued

that the steady reduction in the number of shools contributed to the fact that during the 1990-

1991 school year over 36% of Hungarian pupils were unable to attend Hungarian-language

schools. As a result , the educational level of Hungarians was purportedly lower than that of

Slovaks: 50% had only primary education, and mere 2% managed to obtain a college or

university diploma. Since 1989, the federal and republican governemnts have rejected the

principle of educational autonomy, leaving no firm legal safeguard for developing education in

the mother tongue for national minorities. Additionally, the Slovak government did not approve

the creation of an independent Hungarian-language teacher´s college. To counter Hungarian

criticism Slovak officials asserted that Hungarian schools accounted for over 8% of all teaching

facilities in the country, while twelve of the 135 senior high schools were Hungarian. In addition,

the state evidently supported the publication of 25 Hungarian magazines, as well as two theatres

and several publishing houses.

The Hungarian minority in Slovakia has set its clear orientation to maintain its mother tongue,

positive attitudes towards the preservation of its national pecularities and tradition, intensive

consciousness. This minority ascribes importance to its own ethnic affiliation on the individual (I

am a Hungarian) and group level (I am a member of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia and I a

a citizen of the Hungarian nation), which gives evidence of the fact that the members of the

Hungarian minority have a tendency to assess and preserve their own culture and identity in a

positive way. One of the basic prerequisites of inegration - good relationships with the majority -

is the possibility of communication, which requires the mastering of the language of the majority

by the minority, or the language of the minority by the majority. The data about the use of the

language give evidence about clear supremacy of the Hungarian language as a means of

communication within its own group. The dominance of the Hungarian language as a basic ethnic

differentiating and integrating sign of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia is strengthened by the

high concentration of Hungarian inhabitants, high ethnic endogamy, proximity of the country of

their origin and material, cultural and spiritual liaisons with it. A majority or respondents of the

Hungarian nationality at least partially speaks Slovak and uses it in communication with the

Slovaks, in particular in the public life when the Slovak does not speak Hungarian. In other cases,

they prefer

speaking Hungarian. The members of the Hungarian nationality expect greater adaptability on the

part of Slovaks in their being able to speak Hungarian, as compared to the expectation o

respondents of the Slovak nationality. The compact character and density of population of the

Hungarian minority probably causes that the language orientation to the mother tongue does not

bring them any greater problems in everyday life. They do not much admit that the Slovaks living

with them could face similar problems if they did not speak Hungarian and they expect the

Slovaks to show a greater rate of adaptability.

According to the last census in 1991, the Hungarian national minority with the number of

566.741 inhabitants, i.e. 10.8% of the population of the Slovak Republic, is the largest minority.

This area of settlement spreads in all the regions of southern Slovakia from the region of

Trebišov in the east as far as the regions of Komárno, Dunajská Streda, Nové Zámky, Bratislava -

vidiek in western Slovakia. Similar to other ethnic groups, it has common psychic and cultural

signs. The language, one of the most decisive of the preservation of ethnic identity and

continuity, is also a distinguishing sign. Its existence is an inevitable condition for the contact of

people in all spheres of social life. Perfect mastering of the language is insured especially by the

school that also forms national consciousness and makes pupils acquainted with the cultura

heritage of the nation. The school is then the most typical cultural and social institution that

creates conditions for the existence and further development of the nation and the national

minority. For this reason, teaching in one´s mother tongue belongs to the basic prerequisites of

their development. According to the

constitutional law (Charter of basic rights and liberties), to the most important rights of the

Hungarian minority in Slovakia belongs the right to education in their mother tongue.

Education of children and young people of the Hungarian minority in the Slovak Republic is, at

the moment, being insured on the level of pre-school institutions (kindergartens) and primary and

secondary schools. The question is about independent institutions where teaching is done in the

Hungarian language, or about the institutions where there are Slovak classes in parallel wit

classes in which Hungarian is the primary language.

Studies at all colleges and universities in Slovakia are conducted in the Slovak language,

exceptfor the Hungarian Department at the University of Constantine the Philosopher in Nitra.

The number of students of Hungarian nationality who applied for study at a university and took

part in entrance examinations was unfavorably influenced by unsuccessful realization of entrance

examinations, especially written tests. These results were probably brought about by a weaker

level of mastery of the Slovak language which was the language of entrance examinations. A

more favorable situation was with the oral tests.

The problem of the language is not only the key problem of the position, self-actualization and

identity of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia but also a key to good relationships with the

majority or a source of conflicts and misunderstanding both on the inter-personal as well as

institutional level. Minimization of the contact surface requires the setting of conditions,

frameworks and guarantees for the fulfillment of the needs of the minority to preserve its own

culture and identity on the one hand and, at the same time, its incorporation into the society

represented by the majority on the other hand. In connection with the language it means that the

members of the minority will be given the possibility to use their mother tongue, develop it and

to educate people in it, which will, at the same time, insure conditions for mastering the Slovak

language. It is also important to limit exactly the scope and circumstances for the use of the

languages on the institutional level. Guaranteeing special rights to groups of citizens defined by

their affiliation to a national minority, as set forth in the charter of basic rights and liberties is, in

this sense, only the basic prerequisite. Unless the conditions and rules of application of the said

rights and supervision over their observance have been exactly specified in subsequent laws or

regulations, we may only speak about an incomplete solution. There is still enough place for

misunderstanding, different interpretation and sources of conflicts related thereto.

The results of comparative research with Hungarian-Slovak bilingual people show that it is

questionable to speak about a Slovak-Hungarian bilingual character. Children of the Hungarian

minority remain monolingual people with different level of mastery of the Slovak language. They

use this language only rarely, in the majority of cases in contact with their Slovak friends in the

place of their domicile. At home, they communicate exclusively in Hungarian, even in cases o

mixed families. Hugarian schools do not balance the preferred use of Hungarian, they do not

create conditions for equal mastery of both languages. The low level of integration capacity o

the Hungarian population may be explained not only by an insufficient knowledge of Slovak and

a low portion of educated people and their mobility tied thereto, but also by different historical

consciousness.

Many episodes from the history of Slovak-Hungarian cohabitation still represent taboo topics.

Reluctance to speak openly about delicate and sensitive questions does not, of course, replace

correct reflection, neither does it contribute to mutual understanding. As compared to other

minorities living in countries with one official language that are fighting for the

acknowledgement of their own language as being equal to the language of the majority and that

are trying to enforce the right to bilingual education, the efforts of the Hungarian minority for

completeness and autonomy of the Hungarian educational system (from kindergartens to

universities) are totally a different matter. The use of Hungarian also at official institutions has

been legally established by the Language Act only in villages where more than 20% of the

Hungarian population live. The Language Act, for that matter, permits bilingual, not autonomy of

the regions with a majority of the Hungarian population.

Bilingual education of children of the Hungarian minority is in compliance with the said act.

This, however, would mean that alongside the teaching of Hungarian and in Hungarian , part of

the study subjects would be taught in Slovak. The number of lessons taught in Slovak would thus

adapt to the level of its mastery. In the first-year classes, Slovak would be taught only in specia

classes in which the comprehension is also supported by non-linguistic means (e.g. mathematics,

arts and crafts, musical education. In higher classes, also some linguistically more demanding

subjects could be taught in Slovak.

At Hungarian schools, Slovak is obligatory, similar to other foreign languages. The entrance

level of mastery of the Slovak language is different, it depends on whether and to what extent a

Hungarian child came into contact with the Slovak community (whether it attended a Slovak

kindergarten). Since the Hungarian minority lives for the most part in villages (65% in 1986) of

nationally compact character, its immediate communication with the Slovak ethnic group is not

intensive. The majority of the members of the Hungarian nationality regards education of their

children exclusively in their mother tongue as being the most substantial condition for the

preservation of their national identity. They realize at the same time that better knowledge of

Slovak would contribute to the improvement of the educational level of the Hungarian minority

which is lower, as compared to the overall Slovak average. The citizens of Hungarian nationality

see the starting of this as an unfavorable condition in bringing education as such to a higher

quality level, teaching of the Slovak language, in expanding the possibility of studying in the

Hungarian language at secondary schools and universities in Slovakia and, finally, in expanding

the possibilities of study in Hungary. The question of teaching in a particular language is

exceptionally important also from the point of view of language integration of the Hungarian

minority because for many children, especially from villages, school is the sole place where the

can hear Slovak.

The level of education of the Hungarian minority is influenced by many factors. One of them is

the social structure of the Hungarian inhabitants. A further factor is insufficiently stimultaing

claims for the working force which result from the social and economic level in the areas

inhabited for the most part by Hungarian people. The social structure is connected with

educational ambitions and place of education in the value structure of not only children bu

especially their parents. The development of the educational structure of the Hungarian minority

is further influenced by the pecularities of its historical development as well as demographic and

ethnographic factors. The question is, in particular, about the language and the big differences

between Hungarian and Slovak. Insufficient education in the past had its degree of influence on

this condition of the whole society. In spite of a large number of problems which also result out

of the former development of education, Hungarian schools represent, at the moment, a vital and

functioning part of the educational system in the Slovak Republic.

3.2 Ruthenian / Ukrainian minority

According to the present internationally acknowledged borders, Ruthenians live on a more or less

compact territory between the borders of three republics of the former Soviet Union (theUkraine,

the Slovak Republic and Poland). A small group of Ruthenians, descendants of the immigrants

in the 18th and 19th centuries, can also be found in Yugoslavia. Their total number reads about

1.2 million people. Out of this number about 130.000 people are living in the region of Prešov,

in the northwest of Slovakia. Ruthenians are members of the ethnic group from which the

Ukrainian nation also originated. The spoken Ruthenian language is a Ukrainian dialect, although

very distant from standard Ukrainian. These attributes, origin and language are important

prerequisites for the formation of national consciousness but they are not decisive for its

preservation. National consciousness is weakening but it may also disappear unless it is

constantly renewed and strengthened, i.e. revived. This is only possible in cohabitation and in the

formation of a common history.

In our opinion., this explains the question of why the Ruthenians, if they regard themselves as

Ruthenians, do not feel the unified with the Ukrainian national community although they come

from the same ethnic group and their language belongs to the system of Ukrainian dialects. A

far as the Ruthenian are concerned living not only in our country but also in the Trans-Carpatian

region, it is known that they had lived for hundreds of years in the Hungary state, thus being

separated from the ethnic group from which they come and from which has developed the

Ukrainian nation, so their history is different, they have different traditions, historical experience

and historical personalities.

According to the tradition, the term „Ruthenian“ was used by eastern Slavonic inhabitants in

the Carpathian region to give denomination to themselves. In the 20th century, especially in its

second half, the historical term „Ruthenian“ was replaced by the term „Ukrainians“ in the Sovie

Trans-Carpathian region and in Slovakia. In several cases, these changes in self-denomination of

the nation came gradually, having been accelerated either by intellectual conviction or national

assimilation, especially in families with nationally mixed parents.

In this case, children regard themselves, similar to their parents, a dominant nationality in the

country, i.e. either Slovak or Polish. Such changes in denomination, however, much more

frequently occurred as the result of an issuance of government decrees according to which the

name „Ruthenian“ was not allowed in the official contact, as well the case of the Soviet Trans-

Carpathian Ukraine and in Poland after 1945 and in Czechoslovakia at the beginning of the 50´s.

As a result thereof, nowadays, in the same ethical-linguistic group, in the same village and, in

several cases, even in the same family it is possible to find people who regard themselves

Ruthenians, Lemks, Ukrainians, Slovaks or Poles. When communist regimes were established in

Poland and Czechoslovakia in 1945 and 1948 respectively, they adopted the Soviet line and

declared the Ruthenian minorities on their territories as Ukrainian. They prohibited the Ruthenian

press and the name „Ruthenian“ in official documents.

After the February coup d´état in 1948, the Czechoslovak Communist Party was also dealing

with the minority question „according to the Soviet model“, i.e. they used the grosses

administrative method: the Ruthenians were declared to be Ukrainians by a governmental decree,

their schools were changed into Ukrainian schools. The teachers who had no pedagogical

qualification, had to attend six-week courses to master standard Ukrainian.

There arose a Ukrainian cultural organization, Ukrainian newspapers, magazines, and radio

where people worked people exclusively without necessary qualification. In Slovak text-books,

there was no mention that in Slovakia there also live Ruthenian-Ukrainians, let alone about their

history and culture.

The last map of the ethnic composition of the population in Eastern Slovakia was issued in

1952. Historical monuments of the Ruthenian minority were presented according to the

territorial, never according to nationalistic or ethnic, principle , this being the case even in the

regions where the Ruthenian-Ukrainian origin was undeniable: icons, small wooden churches. If

we take into account the fact that Ukrainization was executed in parallel with the liquidation o

the Greek-Catholic Church through forced introduction of the Orthodox Church, then no wonder

the majority of the Ruthenian population did not accept it and expressed their discontent by

declaring themselves to be of Slovak nationality. Fear played an important role in the question of

the renouncing of their national identity: fear of forced deportation of Ruthenian-Ukrainians t

the Ukraine or to the Czech border regions, fear of annexation of the territory of the Ruthenian

ethnic group to the Soviet Union.

The overall anti-Ukrainian atmosphere also played its part of the role in after-war

Czechoslovakia, this atmosphere was provoked by a fight against the remnants of the Ukrainian

rebellious army on our territory (Bander groups). The ethnonym „Ukrainian“ was very often

associated with the term „Bander bandit“ (similar to „German“ and „Nazi“). At the beginning of

the year 1952 in Czechoslovakia, the introduction of the Ukrainian identity proved to be an

advantage for those Slovaks who had always said that „their Ruthenians“ had in reality been

Slovaks of „Greek-Catholic religion“. In its substance, the forced Ukrainization in the fifties and

sixties (in combination with the liquidation of the local Greek-Catholic church and forced

collectivization of farm land) led to the quickest rate of Slovakization and national assimilation

that the Ruthenians had ever experienced.

In spite of this fact it is true that the Czechoslovak governemnt also offered large financia

support for the establishment of a number of cultural organizations that were Ukrainian in their

national format but socialistic in their content. The well-paid local Ukrainian intelligentsia had

even succeeded in achieving scientific and literary success. A positive role was played also b

Ukrainian organizations:

the Cultural Union, research institutes, departments at universities, museums, publishing houses,

radio, theatre, song and dance ensemble and the Union of Writers. More than 500 books were

published of scientific literature and belles-lettres and more than eight hundred textbooks.

This, however, had little influence on the masses of Ruthenian farmers in Slovakia. For them

the selection was very simple: if one could not be Ruthenian, then it is better to declare oneself

Slovak rather than Ukrainian, which was, among other things, connected with the so much hated

East.

There are several reasons the Ruthenian-Ukrainians renounce their own national identity and

incline to a foreign, majority, nationality. One of the main reasons is the weak national

consciousness of the Ruthenians - Ukrainians. They, as compared to other nations and

nationalities in central Europe, had not yet completed the process of national consciousness. In

the past, the Ruthenians associated their nationality with religion, „the Russina religion“. The

defended their religion carefully but they did not care about their nationality so much. As early as

the time of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, a vast majority of Ruthenians, especially the

intelligentsia, regarded themselves as belonging to the Hungarian nationality and, after the

Czechoslovak Republic was founded, to the Slovak nationality.

Official policy both during the Austrian-Hungarian empire and the first Czecho-slovak

Republic supported assimilation tendecies between the Ruthenians. The policy of the Slovak

State was oriented to their forced assimilation. The main defendant of the national rights of the

Ruthenians was, at that time, the Greek-Catholic Church which is, at the moment, supported their

assimilation with the Slovaks.

After the changes which the Velvet revolution brought with itself in Czechoslovakia in 1989,

new committees arose which founded their own Ruthenian organizations and publications. B

the end of 1990, the Ruthenians founded five new Ruthenian organizations on the territory the

live in. These organization set in principle the same requirements: to acknowledge the Ruthenians

as an independent nationality, to codify the Ruthenian literary language and finally to use it at

schools as a teaching language, to insure full rights of a national minority for the Ruthenians in

the countries they live in and to acknowledge the Ruthenians as a dominant original nationality in

Trans Carpathian Russia.

In March 1991 in the Slovak city of Medzilaborce, the first World Ruthenian Congress was

held on the initiative of the Society for National Revival of Ruthenians. In spite of the historical

relationship between the Ruthenian communists in their home country and the immigrants in the

USA, it was for the first time when representatives met in one place from all the countries in

which the Ruthenians live (Trans-Carpathian Ukraine, Czecho-slovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia and

the United States.) This congress constituted as a constant all-encompassing organization and its

existence itself had an immense influence on the stimulation of Ruthenian national pride of the

more than 300 people who took part at it, not to speak about a number of those who read about

the congress in generally available newspapers.

In 1991 in Czechoslovakia, a regular census was taken in which for the first time since he

second world war, the people had the right to say that they were of Ruthenian nationality. In

spite of the problems arising from the way the question of nationality was submitted and

subsequently analyzed, some 17.000 people claimed to be Ruthenians in Slovakia, as compared

to 14.000 Ukrainians. In spite of forty years of communist oppression, the Ruthenians were not

exterminated. Today, still exist Ruthenian organizations, Ruthenian publications and a relatively

large community of writers, teachers, experts and farmers who constantly declare, in the press

and at public meetings, their affiliation to the independent Ruthenian nation.

Today, the Union of Ruthenians-Ukrainians registers about 10.000 members. In addition to the

central organization of the Union of Ruthenians-Ukrainians, there exist also many others:

��� '�������� '���� ��� ��� ������� �� � 2�������&� '���� 3#��&� 4������5� 6������� ���

Association of Ukrainians in Slovakia, the Association of Ukrainian Writers in Slovakia, the

Union of Trans-Carpathian Youth, and others. Each of these organizations has its own statutes

and program. Without exception, all want to develop their activity only within the framework of

Slovakia and none of them tries to annex the Ruthenian-Ukrainian ethnic group to a different

country. The Ruthenian-Ukrainians were and want to be in the future an integral part of the

Slovak Republic.

The Ruthenians are only one of many groups that suffered under the totalitarian regimes ruling

in Eastern and Middle Europe during the last 40 years. Now that these regimes no longer exist

we have a real possibility of correcting the mistakes of the past and of insuring the survival of

the Ruthenians in the future. Similar to other minorities, the future of the survival of the

Ruthenians depends on the good will of the countries with which they live, on providing the

with adequate legal protection and, if necessary, financial support for their national development.

For these reasons, the Ruthenians have to inform the international community of, and constantly

remind it, that they exist. On the other hand, the Ruthenians must expect the international

community to monitor their situation and, if necessary, to force the governments in the Ukraine,

Slovakia, Poland and Yugoslavia to insure them protection of their international rights. All four

countries on whose territory the Ruthenians live signed several agreements at the meeting of the

Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), agreements concerned with national

minorities. Of exceptional significance for the Ruthenians was the decision adopted at the

Copenhagen conference of CSCE in June 1990.

It was agreed in Copenhagen that „affiliation to a national minority is the matter of individual

choice of a person and no disadvantage may result from such a choice“. Further it provides that

„citizens belonging to national minorities may claim their rights both individually and within the

framework of the community with other members of such a group“. This means that irrespective

of the way the Ruthenians could be defined by scientists or individual governments, if there are

individuals or groups that call themselves Ruthenians, who are persuaded that they represent an

independent nationality, they have the right to act so and to be acknowledged as Ruthenians in

the countries where they live. The Copenhagen meeting also acknowledge the role of extra-

governmental organizations in the course of enforcing the interests of national minorities and

asked the interested countries to insure that the teaching of history and culture in educationa

institutions „include also history and culture of national minorties.

As far as Slovakia is concerned, the situation of the Ruthenians. especially since the November

revolution in 1989, has been better than in the Trans-Carpathian Ukraine or in Poland. Until

recently, however, the Slovak government, usually through the Ministry of Culture, provided

only ad hoc grants to new Ruthenian organizations and publications.

Subsidies from the governemnt support several departments at universities and institutes at the

university in Prešov, the Ukrainian Radio station, the Ukrainian publishing house, the Museum of

6�������� /������ �� ����� 7� ��� ��8����� 2�������& 4������ ������� ��� 6�������� ��������

Theatre).

In Slovakia, however, two clearly defined ethnic orientations exist: Ruthenians and Ukrainians.

If support of national minorities is to continue in Slovakia, than governments have to finacially

support both Ruthenian and Ukrainian organizations. How can the government distribute funds

among the East Slovakian minorities that were until recently regarded as only Ukrainian? In the

beginning, one might think that the only reasonable way would be the acceptance of such a

percentage distribution that is reflected in the results of the census in 1991, which would mean

55% of the budget to Ruthenian and 45% to Ukrainian cultural organizations, schools and the

mass media. Exceptioanlly problematic is the question of schools in Slovakia because since the

sixties the teaching language has been changed in a majority of villages inhabited by Ruthenians,

at the request of the parents themselves, from Ukrainian into Slovak. Furthemore, as part of the

consolidating process during the last two decades, a number of small primary schools have been

closed down in villages inhabited by Ruthenians. If state-controlled or private schools reopened

also in Ruthenian villages, it is very probable that the teaching language would be Slovak. The

Slovak Ministry of Education, however, has to provide teachers and textbooks in the Ruthenian

or Ukrainian language to those villages that will submit such an application. What is, however,

the most important is that textbooks on history in Slovakia should contain an analysis of the

history and culture of the Ruthenians living in the western region as well as of other minorities,

which will be of signicance for all pupils. This would be in compliance with the Copenhagen

agreement CSCE which is, together with other „international agreements about human rights and

freedom“ and in accordance with the new Constitution of the Slovak Republic „generall

binding on its territory and over-rules its own law.

3.3 Romani minority

The March 1991 census showed that after 60 years it was the first time the Roman

population in Czechoslovakia had the possibility to adhere freely to their ethnic affiliation.

In Slovakia, 80.627 people, i.e. 1.53% of the Slovak citizens adhered to the Romani

population. However, according to the 1989 census of municipal and communal state

administration authorities, there were 253.943 Romani people living in Slovakia, which

was 4.8%, i.e. more then triple the amount. Since these statistics do not include the Romanies

having the same standard of living as the majority of the population, the Romani political

and cultural bodies think that the number of Romani people in Slovakia is higher. The

demographic data show that there are about 5% Romanies in the Slovak Republic. The

population growth of the Romani people is about four times higher than that of the rest of

the population.

At the moment, according to the results of the Institute of Social Sciences of the Slovak

Academy of Sciences, the Romani population in Slovakia belongs to the least educated

ethnic group. They are homogenous by class and by profession finding only the least qualified

jobs, which is in sharp contrast to the structure of professions in the entire society. The

participation of the Romani population in the economic development of the society is very

scarce. The existence of the Romani population in the former Czechoslovakia was no

mentioned in any legal regulation, it had never been legally acknowledged or embodied. They

were only mentioned in regulations of lower legal power that regulated social allowance

and services. This resulted in the impossibility of establishing a Romani institution, which

was justified because of the low level of educational influence of the society in the case of

segregation institutions.

From 1945, the policy of the State, as regards the Romani population, had gradually realized the

following concepts:

1. the concept of social assimilation of the Romani population - from 1945 when the so-called

„Romani issue“ began to be centrally dealt with on an institutional level,

2. the concept of controlled dispersion - the question was about a planned and organized

disperzion of the Romani population from the places of high concentration in Slovakia

especially to the Czech lands - from the year 1965,

3. the concept of the integration of the Romani population into the society - from the year 1972.

A natural wish of the Romani minority was to achieve the acceptance by the majority. As

early as the inter-war period, F. Štampach described the fact when Romani musicians tried

to get rid of their Gypsy origin, they applied powder on their faces and also refused to use

their mother tongue. This process continued on a significant level in the period after the Second

World War. The said political attitude towards the Romani population resulted in the fact that the

Romani people were regarded as a peripheral and socially degenerated layer of the society

Adherence to the Romani ethnic community at that time meant volunteer adherence to anti-socia

elements. At school, Romani children did not learn anything about themselves, their history and

culture, neither did belles-lettres, except for a few cases, picture a positive Romani hero with

whom the Romani reader could associate. Such an attitude had finally resulted in the devastation

of positive ethnic consciousness.

The Romani people deprived of their own identity did not find the purpose or sense of their

existence. Their whole after-war development could be classified as being a process o

deculturization and social and moral retardation. In such a situation, more resolute individuals

who wanted to liberate themselves from their backward: and to live on the same standard as the

majority of the population, selected a method of distancing themselves, in a decided way, from

their ethnic origin. It is a well.known process when a person freely selects their own way of

negation of their ethnic origin that represents for them a feeling of insecurity and inferiority with

an aim to successfully integrate oneself into the society of a different culture.

This process was evident in several regions in Slovakia, in particular in the fact that some

Romani parents consciously did not teach their own children the Romani language because the

would not need this language in the everyday life. They consciously try to adopt the way of life

of the majority of the population not only outwardly (way of dwelling, dressing, cooking) but

also by adopting themselves to the local customs (e.g. at weddings, Christmas) and they

demonstratively refuse the traditional Romani ways, superstitions, practice of folk medical

treatment and regard them as being the customs of the past and primitive way of life.

It has been at least two decades that a small group of Romani people has existed among the

Romani population that wants the Romani population to be accepted as a distinctive ethnic

community. The said group is represented by the people who have overcome the handicap of the

past and a new positive ethnic consciousness is being born in themselves. They are mostly

educated people, graduates from secondary scholls or universities, this being not a matter of rule.

Many of them do not speak Romani and have to learn it at an adult age. They realize that one o

the ways of solving of the unsatisfying social position of the Romani population and of being

equal with the majority community is the way of positive ethnic self-identification, realization o

the values of one´s own language and culture.

After November 1989, the Romani population began to look for their place in the social

organization of the society, create their own cultural institutions, ethnic networks, e.i. to

institutionalize their ethnic character. A part of the Romani intelligentsia took the leading

position in various civic Romani groups and political parties that participated in the 1990

election. The Romani civic and political movements, however, are marked by a complicated

search for the Romani identity within the Romani community as a result of the former historical

development.

In April 1991, the government of the Slovak Republic adopted new principles of attitude of the

State to the Romani population. The government based this fact on the principal idea that it is not

possible to associate the roles of the State as regards the Romani ethnic group as a minority

population (represented by political parties and movements in legislative bodies as well as in

central bodies dealing with nationality issues) and as regards the part of the Romani population

who are socially and culturally backward.

The typology of Romani families living in Slovakia discovered different patterns in the

behaviour of the Romanies in the sphere of partnership behaviour and partnership which result

in a different process of life cycle of a Romani family. Together with the different work

behaviour it means that the Romanies in Slovakia represent a totally different culture and socia

behaviour patterns, as compared to the rest of the population living in this country. Attitudes and

relationships of the inhabitants towards Romanies are rather negative. Stereotypes and

superstitions prevail, which cause social isolation of Romanies and a large social distance

between them and the rest of the population.

The identity of Romanies brings with itself a contradictory relation towards its ethnic nature -

beginning with its devaluation and disrespect (either hidden or real) through the feeling of

inferiority and ending with an uncritical and exaggerated evaluation. In political movements as

well as leaders find it difficult to orient in the complexity of its problem and to find the core o

one´s ethnicity, to comprehend its connections and to find objectives and ways for its completion.

A characteristic feature of Romani civic and political movements are conflicts and contradictions,

prejudice and various maneuvers of their leaders as part of the political processes in which they

took part. They became leaders of various political parties, cultural unions and religious

groupings.

In spite of the fact that these organizations had set similar targets with a view of overall raising

of the standard of the Romani population, development of its culture, elimination of illiteracy,

decreasing criminality etc., yet they did not agree on one issue, they even stood sharply one

against the other: a different degree of ethnic identification demonstrated in the different opinion

on one´s own ethnic position within the existing ethnic composition of the population.

The Romani Civic Initiative, in the beginning the most numerous Romani movement, set their

primary objective to achieve legislative equality of Romanies with the other minorities in

Czechoslovakia by acknowledging the status of nationality and by respecting their own ethnic

denomination as „Romani“ rather then the commonly used „Gypsy“ which they feel is pejorative.

In Slovakia, this idea was also supported by the Democratic Union of Romanies but the

Democratic Romani Union Party did not express themselves with regards to this issue (the

representatives of the party justified their attitude by the fear of the decomposition of the

membership). A firm stance was maintained by the Romani Integration Party which in its

action program, Article 13 specifies: ... In our work we do not want to separate from the rest of

the Slovak population by legalizing the Romani nationality but with our political and public

education activities we do not want to support faster assimilation of the Romani ethnic group.

The issue is probably about a curious case of a political body constituted on the ethnic basis

which sets its objective to be the decline of its own ethnic group.

Against the acknowledgment of the Romani nationality originally expressed their opinion also

some other bodies - the Association of the Romani Intelligentsia and the League of the Romani

Unity which later adjusted their opinion. During personal negotiations with the advocates of these

attitudes, a great number of answers was registered: the majority said that they were afraid o

being discriminated against - or not being accepted for work if they had the Romani nationality

marked in their personal documents.

There were also numerous opinions that the process of self-constitution of the Romani ethnical

group was only at the beginning, that the Romanies are not yet a nation or a nationality but only

an ethnic group. Last but not least, there is also a group of people who realize their ethnic origin,

they want to help the others. They, however, identify with the Slovaks (they do not accept the

possibility of being ethnically associated with the Romani population), in some cases it is

possible to speak about a double identity.

Czechoslovakia belonged to the Central and East European countries with the highest absolute

and relative number of Romanies. Although the Romani ethnic group has been living on this

territory for centuries, the Romanies create a separate ethnic community with its own culture.

They were and still are clearly separated from the rest of the society and create an ethnic minority

different not only from the majority ethnic group in Slovakia but also from the other ethnic

minorities living in Slovakia. Cultural under-development and a low social and economic level of

a great majority of Romanies represented not only an economic, but also ideological problem for

the socialist country and socialist state administration. Often proclaimed social equality of all

citizens, their real and planned living standard was in sharp contrast with the real standard of

living of the Romanies, their income, education, health condition, etc.

The socialist „social state“ in the spirit of its proclaimed ideals and paternalistic - protector´

attitude to all its citizens „committed“ several discrepancies. It denied the existence of the

Romani population as an ethnic group, but at the same time it classified them as belonging to a

group dependent upon social support and making use of special social advantages and

achievements that were not provided to the rest of the population:

- purchase of shacks, priority allocation of flats, food allowances for children in kindergartens

and primary schools, priority acceptance of Gypsy children to secondary schools, colleges and

universities.

In the last years of the socialist state, a large apparatus was created which in Slovakia employed

as many as a hundred thousand people whose sole working task was practical field social work

among Romanies, its methodological and administrative management.

In spite of large costs and investments, the deformation of the policy as regards Romanies

brought satisfaction neither to Romanies nor to the rest of the society. The contrary is true, it

resulted in the fact that the social distance and tension in the contacts between Romanies and the

rest of the society persisted and was even growing.

In its effort to eliminate the remnants of the protector´s attitude of the state with regards to

Romanies, in April 1991 the government of the Slovak republic adopted the Principles of

Attitude to Romanies that grant the Romanies their ethnic status without exception which is

equivalent to the status of the other ethnic minorities living in Slovakia.

In the social sphere, Romanies are regarded, in the sense of the said principles, as being equal

citizens of the state who, in the case of social dependence, have the right to make use of the

same social advantages and support.

The principles adopted by the government cancelled the central control of the „Romani issue“

and grant the power and liability to local governments that should be provided with the means

and possibilities in a different way to cope with the issues covering a particular part of the

Romani population. By having adopted the said principles, a first step had been taken towards

the change of the overall concept of the state policy not only with regards to Romanies but also,

indirectly, to the other ethnic minorities in Slovakia. The government has not yet decided, neither

do its further steps show clearly whether it will support liberal - pluralistic or corporative -

pluralistic concept of attitude towards ethnic communities. We regard the difference between

these concepts as principal.

The liberal - pluralistic regime prevents the existence of official favoritism of individual ethnic

groups. Such a system tolerates voluntary and spontaneous ethnic associations and ethnic

groupings, tolerates cultural division of labour, i.e. stratification of employees according to

ethnic origin and a policy realized by ethnic minorities unless they interfere in public affairs and

activities. The state, however, does not encourage, nor does it strengthen, the ethnicity by

supporting ethnic institutions. Ethnicity is regarded as a private matter of citizens in which the

state does not interfere, does not prohibit it but supports the civic principle in the practical

decision-making process.

The corporative - pluralistic regime provides the ethnic communities with a separate bu

equivalent legal status and political possibilities and distributes advantages on the grounds o

ethnic quotas or ethnic - regional rights. Such a system tolerates and supports segregated

institutions and politically protects ethnicity. Legally, this system is represented most often by a

federation which ensures equal positions with regards to ethnic groups.

Federation is for the most part formed by ethnic groups with approximately similar dominant

position. There are very few countries that use the corporative - pluralistic attitude to ethnic

minorities. The obstacle is the institution of the state itself. In order for a state to function

properly, it needs a certain degree of cohesion and ethnicity always represents a potential of

political (and not only political) splitting off.

By preferring one or the other concept, it has a number of different practical consequences in

relation to ethnic groups. The idea of, for example, the ethnic segregation of educational

institutions is understood in a different way, priority assurance of posts at schools not according

to performace but according to the affiliation to an ethnic group (a system of ethnic quotas, the

so-called affirmation action). The „equality of opportunities“ in a different social background is

also understood in a different way.

Resulting from the above the official acknowledgement of ethnicity of a certain community

and its political suppport and maintenance mean two different things. The Romani ethnic group

in Slovakia is still fighting for only the first step. It is, to a certain extent, a prestigious fight,

cultural and moral fight, a fight for the social and legal status. It is fought by only a small number

of the Romani intelligentsia and to a great extent it is fought not only against the majority ethnic

group but also against those members of an ethnic group who do not want their own ethnicity.

The issue is about those Romanies who have invested a great deal into being at the same level

with the majority both materially and socially. They have paid a large sum for it and their life

experience tells them that the price for the achievement of the Romani ethnic identity is not

equivalent with the possible loss of such a position achieved. So it is more and more evident to

them as well as to the whole society that the Romanies in Slovakia are at the moment, and fulfill

all the requirements to be also in future, a group which is most frustrated by unemployment, low

and certain social status and by political helplessness. Under the conditions of transfer from

„social state“ to and „economic state“, a state with market economy, there change not only value

systems and morality of both individuals and the society. It has become a question of whether

the most adequate term for the development of ethnic communities in such a state is the ter

„integration“. If we comprehend integration in the sense of ethnic integration, then the legal

acknowledgement of the ethnic Romani community and its placement among the other minorities

in Slovakia, without respect to the support of ethnicity from the state, already contains such

integration. If we comprehend integration from the social, cultural and spiritual point of view, we

find ourselves in the sphere where the question of ethnic tolerance, ethnic superstitions,

stereotypes and discrimination play the main role. If we comprehend integration in the social

economic sense, it is a problem of economic stratification and social - economic mobility of the

members of the Romani ethnic environment.

4 Conclusions

Proposals for a better integration of minorities in Slovakia

In connection with the complex project on the life and prospects of the national minorities in

Slovakia I feel competent to express my experience resulting from a deeper study of this highl

topical and important issue. It is easier to orient ourselves in solving the experience from pas

inequalities as well as in the formation of hopes and opinions, in the recommendation of new

approaches and proposals. Looked at historically, it is a natural tendency.

In spite of the above mentioned I agree with the important and updated themes formulated a

the 2nd Bratislava symposium which concerned the question of national minorities living in

Slovakia. I recommend that the needs of national minorities regarding education be satisfied not

only by a formal acknowledgement of their rights, but also by creating a corresponding

institutional framework.

In ethnically mixed regions the following principles should be respected:

- minorities should always take an active part in the decision making process in the phere o

public administration,

- the staff of public administration bodies should communicate in both languages.

This principle should also be spread into the sphere of local governments, rescue, fire control

and police services as well as into courts of law and legal system in order for individuals or

groups of people not to be discriminated against,

- the composition of the local administration should correspond to the composition of the local

population, i.e. the system of proportional representation should be introduced,

- to strenghten the infrastructure of minority groups institutionally, in particular when the Stat

ceases to financially support voluntary cultural activities. In such a case it is necessary to appl

for an active financial support with sponsors,

- religious rituals and weddings should be executed in the language of a particular ethnic group. I

results therefor that the clergy is assigned a signicant social role in the reproduction of the

language and culture,

- it is necessary to assure a better system of education for the Romany and Hungarian

community as well as bilingual education of minorities in those regions where large numbers of

these inhabitants live together,

- to support to a greater extent the cultural activity of professional institutions of all ethnic

groups,

- to support such a solution of social conflicts which is acceptable for all interested parties,

- to invite external experts in order for them to analyze a particular conflict from the point of

view of an external observer and to serve as agents in providing experience with the solution of

similar problems in different countries.

The mutual minority - minority and minority - majority relations are of a multilayer character

and function on several lines. On the vertical line, it could be said that the basis is formed by

psycho-social feelings that, to a certain degree, determine the whole superstructure o

relationships and reach the world-wide level. Here also belong inter-group feelings, such as is

hatred, inferiority or superiority complex, or more positive feelings such as is trust and

willingness to help.

The collective rights of minorities are significant in the assurance of their equal civil rights. It is

a question of compensation for natural advantages enjoyed by the majority population. The

identity of minority groups may also be strengthened through private cultural institutions.

The collective rights enrich the citizens by their pluralistic substance thus suppressing the

trends directed to the totalitarian power of monistic nationalism. This should be accompanied b

political decentralization, self-administration of citizens, communities and private institutions as

well as positive support on the part of the State that could help with the elimination of

discrimination of minorities. Stress should be laid upon the right to self-determination and

autonomous organization, upon the transferring of power into regions and upon the significance

of solving conflicts arisen on a local level.

The collective rights assure also for the minorities to be able to take part in the life of the

society as its citizens. Extra-governmental organizations may play a constructive role in the

process of building cultural institutions. The State should help with the economic, social and

cultural development in order for the collective rights to be really satisfied. No culture can

survive without its own cultural institutions, neither can any culture without being resistant to

external influences.

The relations among minorities mutually and the interactions between the majority and the

minority that function on several levels are complex. We often accept a different view and the

making a stereotype of a minority is often an inexact simplification.

Within the proposals and recommendations regarding the problem of the Romany minorit

living in Slovakia it appears suitable to mention that the right of an ethnic group to associate,

create ethnically segregated institutions of all types in the positive sense, encourage and create

the ethnic environment and ethnic borders, gain prestige, self-respect and ethnic pride is an

inevitable degree and step in the development of any ethnic group. It is, however, questionable

whether it is a step that will be sufficient to overcome social backwardness, social exaltation and

development o

this ethnic community as a group. On April 9, 1991 the government of the Slovak Republic

accepted the requirement of equality of Romanies with the ther ethnic minorities in Slovakia.

The right to freely decide on one´s own ethnic affiliation is also assured in Decree of Basic

Rights and Liberties adopted by the Slovak Republic. Individual ministries develop accepted

principles of the new attitude of the government to the Romany minority assuring them rights in

the sphere of culture and education. The public opinion must also be taken into account, it is

mostly oriented anti-Romany. The April 1990 research performed by the Social Sciences Institute

in Košice, Slovakia showed that 45.2% of respondents said that they would expel Romanies out

of their country, 20.3% would accept them only as visitors from a different country and onl

4.7% would accept them as close neighbours. Similarly, the public opinion organized by the

Slovak Statistical Office in May 1991 showed that 45% respondents characterized their relation

to Romanies as unfriendly, 33% as indifferent, and 20% as friendly.

With regard to the existent superstitions of the society, the Romany population is faced with the

role to overcome fear of not being accepted by the majority, which makes the process of search

for one´s own identity more complicated to a great extent. It will be interesting to follow the

development of the process of ethnic identification of the Romany population which we are

witnesses to. This occurs in the period when the high percentage of the Romanies have more

serious problems - problems of basic existence: unqualified workers or workers with lower

qualification are among the first to lose their jobs.

In the period to come it will be necessary to focus on the problems of development of Romany

culture, on the codification of the Romany language, on the utilization of this language in the

educational process of Romanies, on the problems with textbooks which should contain

information on history and culture of the ethnic minorities living in Slovakia, including the

Romany minority

From the negotiations, and in the course of discussions, about the Romany minority in Slovakia

at the 2nd Bratislava symposium under the title of Minorities in Politics resulted the following

generalizations:

The Romanies in Slovakia have been recognized as a minority with the ethnic status that is

equivalent to the other ethnic minorities living in Slovakia. Out of this equality also stems a

factual possibility of ethnic and cultural development, i.e. development of the language,

education, their own periodical press and belles-lettres - the possibility of a positive process o

self-consciousness. Although basic documents exist regarding the orientation of the government

of the Slovak Republic with regards to the Romany population, the present day condition of their

living standard is not favorable, unemployment affect Romanies first of all, their standard of

living and income are lower than those of the majority of the population. They continue to be the

least educated group in the society.

In this connection it is recommended that an analysis be worked out of connections,

relationships, alternatives of development and prognoses of the Romany ethnic population as a

whole, as well as an interdisciplinary research be executed into the history, culture, traditiona

and present day way of life of the Romany minority and the programs of development of the

education of Romanies

be supported. It is also recommended to focus upon the solution of problems of development of

the regions with which the development of the Romany communities living on these regions is

also directly connected and upon the education of the society, inter-ethnic tolerance, elimination

of superstitions and intolerance. Not less important is also making the exchange of knowledge

and experience on the international level more intensive.

Since the onset of the democratic changes, several Slovak nationalist groups have not only

campaigned for Slovak independence but have demonstrated against the republic´s minorities,

particularly against Hungarians who were scapegoated for alleged subversion, and the Romani,

the perennial stereotype of criminality and disorder.

The Slovak government has been criticized for failing to protect the Romani population from

acts of violence perpetrated by racist radicals or from persistent discrimination in employement,

education and housing. Nonetheless, Romani have been able to establish their own political

organizations and to participate in local and legislative elections. Because they remained

embryonic and splintered, Romani parties proved unable to pass the threshold for parliamentary

representation.

The Slovak citizenship law passed in January 1993 did not stir any significant controversy,

although some of its stipulations for acquiring ´state citizenship´could precipitate bureucratic

discrimination against some minority groups. For instance in applying for citizenship by the end

of December 1993, an individual needed to prove mastery of the Slovak language and the

absence of a criminal record during the past five years. The former provisions could theoretically

be used to disenfranchise some older Hungarian residents whose knowledge of Slovak was often

rudimentary, while the latter stipulation could discriminate against Romani residents particularl

if the onus was the individual to prove his or her innocence.

In order to solve the issue of the Ruthenian / Ukrainian national minority living in Slovakia, I

recommend and propose the following:

The Ruthenian minority is characterizied by its complex inner structure. The question is about the

Ukrainian, Ruthenian and Carpathian - Russian orientation of the Ruthenian minority, while the

first two orientations have a decisive effect on the population of the Ruthenian nationality.

Permanent tension between these orientations and their organizations, as respresented by the

Union of Ruthenians-Ukrainians of the Slovak Republic and the Ruthenian Revival, has been the

source of constant conflicts since the beginning of their existence. The aforesaid organizations

profess to be the representatives of all Ruthenian population in Slovakia. They have their own

members and followers at home as well as abroad.

In addition to these two organizations, as well as organizations having a liking for one of the

two orientations (in the terminology of political science they are understood as being their

supporting clubs), there exists a third orientation in Slovakia which is characterized by the

Carpathian-Russian orientation. To put it simply, one may say that in their orientation they are

successors to the so called Great Russian orientation which still its follows from the fifties. It is

not known how many members they have and their influence is negligible nowadays. In the

attitudes of all the three orientations there prevails a common opinion, namely that the state or

certain political forces do not meet their requirements. The most frequently expressed opinions o

supporters of the Ruthenian and Carpathian orientations are those influenced by the fear evoked

by reminiscences, i.e. whether or not the Ukraine will try to realize its megalomaniacal intentions

as evidenced in the former Soviet Union. The present social and economic situation in the

Ukraine does not show this country as an attractive example.

In May 1995, a new political entity was established - the Dukla Democratic Assembly.

Although it stresses in its program that it operates among the inhabitants of the north east

Slovakian region no matter what nationality they belong to, to its evident that its activity is

strongly oriented to solving problems of the Ruthenian (Ukrainian) ethnic group. It seems that

pro-Ukrainian opinions meet the greatest response in this party. If the Dukla Democratic Party

does not succeed in addressing also pro-Ukrainian oriented followers , its competence and

importance will substantially diminish, or as a counter-balance, a new political entity can arise

which in its turn, could be much more pro Ruthenian oriented.

Looked at objectively, as well as according to opinions of many a representative of both the

pro-Ruthenian and pro-Ukrainian orientations, the present situation is also getting worse as a

result of the bad condition of the legislature in relation to national minorities.

To sum up the question of the Ruthenian nationality, it is necessary to say that formerly unified

if small number a nationality, denoted as Ruthenians or Russian before 1952 and after this year as

Ukrainian, split, according to the last census, into two smaller nationalities: Ruthenian and

Ukrainian. This splitting was enabled by the fact that after the fall of the totalitarian regime, the

Ruthenian population could affiliate itself also to the Ruthenian nationality. They did not have

such a possibility before because the totalitarian regime abolished the Ruthenian nationality in

1952.

The population made use of the possibility to freely affiliate themselves to their own nationality,

as compared to 13.847 people of Ukrainian nationality. In the last census, the people filled up

the information about their nationality by themselves , so we cannot speak about manipulation.

As far as the above said is concerned, the question has been settled. From the human point o

view, however, we recorded a splitting of one community that has its common ethnic origin,

spoken language, history and historical experience. We realize the seriousness of this decision if

we take

into account the fact that the splitting also affected many families.

The division of the Ruthenian population into Ruthenians and Ukrainians has been accepted bu

it is recommended to regard this division as being an internal matter of the Ruthenian population.

State authorities must carefully watch their policy making in order not to give reason to believing

that they give priority to one over the other.

The outlook for optimism regarding the future of the national minority of Ruthenian-Ukrainians

is, however, very poor. This national minority that for centuries has preserved its own identity

and has resisted all efforts to be liquidated is nowadays on the verge of extinction. Its splitting

into two parts - Ruthenians and Ukrainians - did not but speed up this extinction. Competent

authorities in the Slovak Republic should realize this situation and adopt effective measures in

order to avoid this extinction. Any extinction of a living organism is a loss, impoverishment of

the human civilization. Slovakia, for this matter, is not so rich to incur such a loss.

In connection with the proposals for a better integration of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia,

it is suitable to mention the following facts. the recent research showed the fact that the

conflicting character of self-identification processes of the majority and the minorities is more

marked in the case of the Slovak - Hungarian development of its cultural life than is specified in

KBSE.

The mutual relations between Hungarians and Slovaks are burdened by various historic sins,

forced assimilation by both parties and a different historic memory.

While on the Hungarian side, the national identity is being stregthened by the feeling of

affiliation to the former ruling nation, on the Slovak side, it is a feeling of inferiority, injustice

and humiliation. The results obtained from representative samples show that Slovak attitudes

towards the Hungarians minority are nourishing to a lower degree by negative stereotypes and

superstitions in the mixed regions where both ethnic groups live together, as compared to the

regions settled only by Slovaks. These hypotheses about the positive influence of the mutual

contact were supported by several research findings.

Among the most frequent features that the Slovaks attribute to the ´Hungarian´ character

belong: superiority complex, arrogance, underrating of other people, expansiveness, domineering

behaviour, nationalism and chauvinism.

The Slovak still feel fear of Hungarian assimilation in the mixed regions, accusation of the

Hungarian minority of intolerance, unwillingness to reach an agreement, suspecting Hungarians

of claimimg territorial rights in the mixed regions.

Within the Hungarian minority, that characterized the Slovak - Hungarian relationship in a

more positive way that the Slovaks, negative stereotypes on the ´Slovak´ character are less known

and less strong. The Hungarians community ´accuses´ the Slovaks of nationalism, chauvinism

and jealousy.

The Hungarian minority as a whole is characteristic for its significant selfsegregation, though

its integration with the Slovak nation is law. To its reservedness contributes a relatively compact

settlement of a mostly rural character, high ethnic endogamy, strong national consciousness with

the historic memory of the Hungarian nation as a dominant nation.

A substantial factor of the still existing isolation of the Hungarian minority is, however,

especially the high degree of language reservedness, unwillingness to communicate in the Slovak

language. This is also the result of the educational policy applied for a long time.

Hungarian children attend special schools in which study subjects are taught exclusively in

Hungarian. Slovak is taught alongside with other foreign languages only in special classes. As

regards university education, the number of students of the Hungarian minority deserves careful

consideration on whether it is necessary to create an institution on a university level that would

serve to the needs of these citizens of the Slovak Republic. On the grounds of the research it was

stated that the age structure of the teachers at Hungarian schools falls mostly within the categor

of 50-60 years old.

The urgent need for younger qualified teachers calls for a new policy oriented towards

acquisition and recruitment of new teachers. In order to overcome the undesirable isolation of the

Hungarian minority, we recommend that a supporting organization for the program of exchange

of Hungarian and Slovak students be established, aiming at deepening their mutual knowledge

and understanding. It would be perhaps interesting to establish a common school for Slovak and

Hungarian children with a bilingual and bicultural educational program in cooperation with the

local community and parents and to solve the conflict of the officially used language in the sense

of equality of both languages, Slovak and Hungarian.

Members of the Hungarian minority interpret the question of civic society from the point o

view of the Hungarian Christian Democratic Movement in the following way:

´Nowadays in the Slovak Republic we are witnesses of an incomplete and not always serious

discussion about the position of Hungarians - citizens of the Slovak republic. It is to the detriment

of the cause that we did not initiate this discussion ourselves, that almost the whole world mus

force us to do so. Governments, parliaments, international institutions and foundations encourage

us to begin a dialog on this question. However, we are often reluctant to take into account the fac

that it is first of all in our own interest to agree seriously upon a specific model of coexistence.

Minorities do not want to accept the status of inferiority, forced assimilation, the fact that they are

regarded as a permanent source of insecurity and tension , they do not want to be eliminated from

public life, they hate constant and militant paternalism on the part of the state power and the

majority. And many of them feel a certain fear. Without a serious discussion and without any

effort to solve this question in a proper way we will remain where we are.´ The Hungarian

minority´s model of solution may be summarized into four items: language rights, autonomy of

culture, autonomy of education and regionalism. They must be guaranteed by the Constitution,

their functioning as well as concept must be insured by a law on minorities. Financial insurance

should be made by an adequate portion of taxes. This capital would grant all minorities their

administrative autonomy.

As is evident, justified claims of the Hungarian minority represent a whole specter. Let us

mention some ideas uttered by a member of the Hungarian Civic Party who stated tha

´...integration of the Hungarian minority is often regarded as its political integration whose

essential point being the question: Why does not a Hungarian political party combine with a

Slovak political party of similar political and ideological orientation? Why do Slovak democrats

think that the Hungarian minority, being fully and internally organized, should renounce its

political organization which they feel important? Another burning requirement imposed on the

minorities is that their members should be loyal to the state and be proud of the state they live in.

The Hungarian Civic Party tries to answer the question:

What does it mean to be loyal to the state? What does it mean to be proud of the state? Does

anybody want to change the frontiers of this state by force? Do the Hungarians break the laws o

this state to a greater extent than the Slovaks? No, they don´t. Do they avoid payment of taxes to

a greater extent than the Slovaks? No, they don´t. Should they be loyal to the inhabitants of the

state? It is in particular the state itself that should be loyal by equally guaranteeing basic right

and freedoms to all citizens without exception and by insuring them equal conditions for a worthy

life. Under the term loyalty of minorities´ the present Slovak government understands an

infinite and openly expressed gratitude of the minorities to the government for the fact that they

have been granted ´super-standard rights´.

Since such heartfelt words of gratitude do not still come, it results therefrom that the Hungarian

minority is not loyal to the state. Why should citizens of any national minority be grateful to the

government for the fact that it grants them basic rights? Integration is a question of mutual

agreement. Isn´t it a matter of course that the majority be demanded to make itself acquainted

with and respect the culture, customs, traditions, living conditions and language of one tenth of

its fellow citizens?...

This is the way the Hungarian minority´s argumentation is presented. We, however, regard the

principle of collective rights for minorities or formation of automous structures on the ethnic

basis as a risk-bearing factor interfering in the formation of a democratic environment. Middle

and East European post-Communist countries are now being formed as national states. It is not

by coincidence that it is in these countries where appear requirements for the formation o

autonomous structures on an ethnic basis, an example thereof being the declaration adopted at

the conference entitled ´Hungary and Hungarians living abroad´ (held on July 4 and 5, 1996 in

Budapest) under the participation of the representatives of the Hungarian government, Hungarian

parliamentary political parties and representatives of political and other bodies representing

Hungarian national minorities

living outside their mother territory. The key requirement set forth in the declaration is the

formation of ethnic autonomies and local self-governments on the territory of the countries where

the Hungarian national minority is living. The reaction of the countries on the territory of which

inhabitants of the Hungarian minority live was critical to the document mentioned above. The

Slovak party felt most offended since, by singing the Agreement of Good Neighbourhood and

friendly Cooperation between Slovakia and Hungary (on March 19, 1995), the Slovaks showed

that they had the intention to create suitable conditions for the historic Slovak - Hungarian

reconciliation. In this context it is also necessary to understand the declaration of the government

of the Slovak Republic (on July 9, 1996) from which one can read at least two facts:

(1) Unfortunately, the Hungarian party breaches the stability the stability in the Central European

geographic and political environments as well as the basic Slovak-Hungarian Agreement,

(2) The concept of ethnic autonomy is an unacceptable way of solution of the minority proble

because it contains ´possible conflict-causing issues from the point of view of the near future.

Last but not least, it can also lead to segregation of the citizens who are equal before the law, to

separatism or even to formation of ´ethnically pure territories´ and eventually to stregthening of

´nationalism´

Therefore a state based on the national principle is not an appropriate way of solving of the

minority question. Neither is it an appropriate way of solution of the question of ethnic

autonomy.

For descent civic coexistence and inter-ethnic communication, the most suitable form is a civic

state with a highly-developed political society. A second is based on a particular type of state

policy. The question is (1) whether to accept consensus policy which is capable of building up,

even under conditions of a state based on the national principle, principles of modern democracy

or (2) to support conflict-causing policy which tries to build a democratic state based on the

majority principle ignoring the rights of minorities. As for the second case, the requirement for a

territorial autonomy is only a logical self-defensive answer of a national minority to the growing

pressure of the governemnt´s power policy.

Ethnic separatist efforts do not begin by calling for territorial autonomy. Territorial autonomy

results from breach of civic equality. This means that there arises a nation as a dominant group o

the second category, on the other hand. When building up a national state in Central and Middle

Europe, it is the democratic component of transformation in the sphere of the political system that

should be devoted the greatest attention.

The future of Europe should not lead to an anachronistic splitting off of countries into a number

of mono-cultural states composed of a single nation. We should make use of this historical

opportunity and create a common Europe with a numebr of cultures that would stem out of

traditional values of plurality and tolerance. It is motivating to follow the work of the

International Minority Rights Group seated in London which has more then twenty associated

members in many parts of the world, mostly in Europe. Its objectives are:

- to stand up for justice for minority or majority groups that are discriminated by monitoring

their situation and publishing as many facts as possible on them, by educating the public and

encouraging the public opinion over the world,

- by publishing the cases of breaching human rights we help to prevent such cases from

developing into dangerous and destructive conflicts which, after having been polarized, would

be difficult to solve,

- on the ground of research, we support and disseminate international understanding of factors

that lead to a biased attitude and tension among groups. We help in this way to increase

consciousness regarding human rights in the world.

Minorities should be looked at as being a source of contacts and different traditions that may

stimulate economic development and suppress conflicts. The above offers a broad sphere for

further research.

The international arena is critically important for helping to ensure that states and minorities

interact productively and peacefully. Each government needs to conclude binding bilatera

agreements with neighbouring states, mutually guaranteeing the rights of the relevant minorities

and renouncing any latent territorial pretensions.

Simultaneously, binational or multi-national monitoring teams could be established to observe

and report on the position of minorities in the states. Such arrangements would deflect charges

that specific states were being singled out for special and unfair treatment or were being

pressured to grant more rights to resident minorities than neighbours. Some moves in this

direction have in fact already been taken in Slovakia.

In my report I have presented only a small, if substantial in its specificity, part of the questions

which must be answered in the interest of democracy in Slovakia. Democracy is impossible

without a civic society. In a civic society rights and interests of minorities are broadly applied. In

addition to the Hungarian and Ruthenian minorities there are in Slovakia also the Romany,

German and Czech minorities with their specific features.

At present, general democratic principles guaranteeing peaceful development of minorities are

being declared in Slovakia. The legislature calls for an immediate revision, which would enable

the minorities to fully realize the rights guaranteed to them.

In conclusion to my report, I cannot but state it is in the interest of Slovakia, a country in which

Hungarians, Ruthenians/Ukrainians and Romany population live, to become a part of a broader

European community. The way the Slovak Republic settles the question of national minorities

will be partially determined also by the extent to which it is prepared to become a member of

new Europe.

Although the proposals outlined above will not rapidly eliminate all the sources and

manifestations of conflict in Slovakia, they can provide a certain basis for dialogue, compromise,

and conflict reduction.

References

ALDERMAN G.-LESLIE J.: Governments, ethnic groups and political representation. New York

University Press. Dartmouth 1993.

�'3/-39�� 3�� (: 39�� 3�; ���<�� �$����� � #�������$�� � ��� ���=���� �� ���&������

������� %������>��� � ��� ������>��� ���?�?�� @A� @� BCADBAE� ��������� BFFE�

G39�� 9�; :������ �������� ���#����� D ��������D �����������H �7��� � ��������H ������ ���

38, 4, 508-514. Bratislava 1990.

G39�� 9�; -+������ �>����) ��������� ������>���� @C� BD@� BCFDBIJ� ��������� BFFB�

BENOIT-ROHMER, F.: The minority question in Europe: towards a coherent system of

protection for national minorities. Council of Europe. Strassburg 1996.

BERRY, J.W.: Social and cultural change. In H.C. Triandis, R.W. Brislin (Eds), Handbook of

cross-cultural psychology. 5, 211-280. Boston 1989.

BLUMENWITZ,D.: Recht und politische Perspektiven deutscher Minderheiten und

Volksgruppen Lang. Frankfurt am Mein 1995.

BORSODY, S.: Czechoslovak Policy and the Hungarian Minority. New York, Columbia

University Press. 1982.

BREMS, M.:Die politische Integration ethnischer Minderheiten aus staats-und volkrrechtlicher

Sicht. Lang, 21. Frankfurt am Main 1995

BRUNNER, G.: Nationalitätprobleme und Minderheitenkonflikte in Osteuropa.Bertelsman.1993.

BUGAJSKI, J.: Ethnic politics in Eastern Europe: a guide to nationality, policies, organizations,

and parties. Sharpe, 26. London 1994.

G6G0� %�; 0�� ������ ����� ����)������� *���� �����)� ����� B@�DBK�F�BFLF� 6=����� BFLF�

-3'9�4-39�� :�; /�������������� /������ $ �+������ ������ H�� �H��)��H�� �����>��7 �

Národopisné informácie, 3, 285-288. Bratislava 1980.

KOPLIN, B.: Nationale und ethnische Minderheiten im Verfassungsrecht der osteuropäischen

Staaten: eine rechtsvergleichende Darstellung. Berlin Verlag. Berlin 1995.

0'G� '�; ��$��� �#&���� �� ���<���� ��#�.��� �>������ �#�����+����� ��������H <���������H

úrad, 14-19. Bratislava 15.7.1991.

MAGOSCI, P.R.: The shaping of a national identity: Subcarpathian Rus´ 1848-1948. Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978, 46-47, 93-95, 237-245.

MARUŠIAKOVÁ, J.: Cigánske etnikum a etnické procesy. Teoreticko-metodologické

�H�������� �H����� ��������) ������ � ���������� �#�����+��� �9� JBDL@� 0�<��� BFLF�

MINORITY V POLITIKE. Kultúrne a jazykové práva. Zborník z medzinárodného sympózia o

���<����� � �������) :��> �� 9���� G����D�� � � ����H �H#�� :��> ���) ����!���) ��������

Bratislava 1992.

NATEW, A.: Interkulturalität aus osteiripäischer Sicht:zuviel versprochen oder zuviel erwartet?

Bundesinstitut fuer Ostwissenschaftliche und Internationale Studien, Koln 1996.

%6039MG� 9� �� ���; 9$?��� �������� � ����������H�� ���<7� � ����������� $���<��H��

�#�������� ���������� � ���� � ���&���������.�� !������ 0�<��� BFFE�

PEHE, J.: The New Slovak Government and Parliament. Research Report, vol. 1, no.28 July 10,

Bratislava 1992.

PLICHTOVÁ, J.: The task of naming and bilinguism. Studia Psychologica, 31, 3, 197-213.

Bratislava 1989.

%NM/-439�� O�; ������� ������ � � ���# � ����������$� ��P ��������. ��+���� BEJ� I� ADF�

Bratislava 1991.

PROCHÁZKA, P.: Position of National Minorities in the Slovak Republic. A Revue of Foreign

Policy, Law, Economics, and Culture, vol. 1, no.3, November. Bratislava 1992.

'3�39�� 4�D Q43'39�� *�; 1�R����� ���<��� �� ��������� � $������ ����) � �) �������

1��$�������� ����������� � ���������D��R����H�� �$?������ ��� �<? BFFB�

SECADA, W.G.: Research, politics, and bilingual education.ANNALS,AAPSS, 1990, 508, 81-

106

�' � 9�; 2����������H ����� ����)����.�� �#�����+���� � G��'� * ������) �����������.

�7�S �S����H�� ��������7 �� ���������� � �������������� K� JE� %���� BFLL�

(%3':'� %�; '>����� D ������� ��<�) ��������� 0���!��� =����� @A� IDK� ��������� BFFB�

ŠOUCOVÁ, D.: Verejná mienka a zákon o úradnom jazyku na Slovensku. Sociológia 24,1.

Bratislava 1992.

(64O� (�; '��������$����� *���� ���������� &���� �#�����+���� ��������� � MM��������) ��)���

136. Košice 1991.

THE LAW ON STATE CITIZENSHIP OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC. Published in Pravda.

January 21, Bratislava 1993.

THORNBERRY, P.: Minorities and Human Rights Law. Minority Rights Group. Report no.73,

London 1987.

WEILEMANN, P.: Ethnizität, Staat und Politik im neuen Osteuropa.Wiss. und Politik. Koln

1995.

*:T39�� �; M������� �7���<�7��� ������ H�� ���< 7� � ����������� $���<��H�� �#��������

Slovenska - sociálnopsychologický prístup. Slovenský národopis, 39,2, 132-142. Bratislava 1991.

*:T39�� �; ���H$� ������H�� ����)�� � ��� <�����!�� � $��������� �� �������) �7���<������

9�����. ���������� � ���&���������.�� !����� �9� CBDAJ� 0�<��� BFLI�

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am grateful to the NATO Research Fellowship for financial assistance

which made it possible for me to carry out this report.

Dr Eva Malá